FREE TERTIARY EDUCATION: IMPROVISATION, NOT RESTRICTIONS

|| Jenny Gardose

“Unsustainable” is how Finance Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno describes the program of free tuition among Philippine State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and CHED-recognized Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs). His statement received a lot of opposition, especially from students who benefit the most from the program, considering that only 0.83% of the 2023 national budget goes to the program.

The free college tuition at SUC was also deemed “insufficient and wasteful,” according to him. How come it is unsustainable for tertiary education when millions in confidential funds are not even properly disclosed or doesn’t provide transparency? Supporting and providing free access to education is not a waste and shouldn’t be in question in the first place.

Concerning the issue of the huge number of students who are not able to attend college, it should be taken into consideration that there are underlying factors as well. The issue about the program being only a subsidy to those who can pay for their college education is that every youth has the right to access quality education; the socio-economic status of a person should not be in question for this. And if a huge number of poor people don’t continue to pursue a college education, shouldn’t the government provide more to include instead of forcing the students to make adjustments for the “insufficiency”?

There are a lot of private and public scholarships available for students, yet it is not enough for some. Imagine removing a huge factor that makes education accessible to students. Therefore, according to CHED Chairman Prospero E. de Vera II, high dropout rates do not justify the repeal of the law requiring free public education.

The finance secretary also proposed screening of students who are eager to qualify for free education in SUCs, simply to “filter” the beneficiaries of SUCs. This makes it more difficult for those who are from poor families as they don’t have the means for review centers and budget to prepare for a nationwide test in determining “qualified” learners. Our education system and the students needed support and refinement, not curtailment.

The government should indeed improve elementary and secondary education; however, the rights of the youth to access quality education should not stop there. The logic of improving only the primary and secondary levels instead of raising the quality of education in all sectors will only threaten promising outcomes

“Edukasyon ang susi sa magandang kinabukasan” and “Edukasyon ang susi sa kahirapan” were amongst other phrases that are used by older generations to motivate youngsters. So if education will save our country from its current state, why is it being limited? Perhaps, in a much bigger picture, it is not only education that will save this country and its people, but also leadership in every sector that is expected to empathize with those within their jurisdiction. But this incident with free tertiary education reflects otherwise. <w>

“Our education system and the students needed support and refinement, not curtailment.”